Is this 30.06 sign posted at Wholefoods compliant?

[EEllis]

It is not compliant but, whole foods is telling you they do not want your business. I would shop some place else. I never shop in a store that posts, even if it is totally non-compliant like this bogus sign. To many other places that will take my money and my chl.

Actually, I will bet you would lose in a court case as it being compliant. It says the sign must include the language, but does not say it can't include other words or even another sign. It also doesn't say it has to be on one piece of sign board.

Really. Heck I've seen signs that separate the english and spanish and I've never heard of this argument before. Then there is the fact that when you apply vinyl to glass each letter is separate, the argument is astounding. I mean sure if you have to go to court you try any argument that might work no matter how big of a long shot but to think that it's likely ..........

Trying to claim that the letters applied to glass are individual letters and not a sign is an even further stretch than saying that there are two separate signs, one in English and one in Spanish, while the statute says "a sign." The glass becomes the sign. All the letters on a piece of paper or poster board are also separate. However, I'll consider that you were also just trying to be over the top to prove a point.

This is also the first time I've considered the issue of two separate signs possibly not meeting the law. That is also why I've stated that I would not want to rely on that as a defense.

How is applying 2 pieces of paper to the glass different than applying a large number of all seperate letters? The argument seems to be because it doesn't look like one piece it somehow invalid seems a stretch. Invalid due to poor sign making?
So if they pushed the seperate pieces together so the didn't show as much gap it would be valid? You are right it was an attempt to make a point but the logic is the same.

[EEllis]

It is not compliant but, whole foods is telling you they do not want your business. I would shop some place else. I never shop in a store that posts, even if it is totally non-compliant like this bogus sign. To many other places that will take my money and my chl.

Actually, I will bet you would lose in a court case as it being compliant. I says the sign must include the language, but does not say it can't include other words or even another sign. It also doesn't say it has to be on one piece of sign board.

Really. Heck I've seen signs that separate the english and spanish and I've never heard of this argument before. Then there is the fact that when you apply vinyl to glass each letter is separate, the argument is astounding. I mean sure if you have to go to court you try any argument that might work no matter how big of a long shot but to think that it's likely ..........

I think you are arguing with a point I agree with you on. I say there is no definition of how the signs must be laid out, so as long as the language is there and the points of the law are met, then the letters on glass, seperate englsih and spanish signs on different sides of the door, etc are all valid IMO.

Not arguing, I was trying to support your comments. My bad

[Keith B]

It is not compliant but, whole foods is telling you they do not want your business. I would shop some place else. I never shop in a store that posts, even if it is totally non-compliant like this bogus sign. To many other places that will take my money and my chl.

Actually, I will bet you would lose in a court case as it being compliant. I says the sign must include the language, but does not say it can't include other words or even another sign. It also doesn't say it has to be on one piece of sign board.

Really. Heck I've seen signs that separate the english and spanish and I've never heard of this argument before. Then there is the fact that when you apply vinyl to glass each letter is separate, the argument is astounding. I mean sure if you have to go to court you try any argument that might work no matter how big of a long shot but to think that it's likely ..........

I think you are arguing with a point I agree with you on. I say there is no definition of how the signs must be laid out, so as long as the language is there and the points of the law are met, then the letters on glass, seperate englsih and spanish signs on different sides of the door, etc are all valid IMO.

Not arguing, I was trying to support your comments. My bad

Ah, OK

[C-dub]

It is not compliant but, whole foods is telling you they do not want your business. I would shop some place else. I never shop in a store that posts, even if it is totally non-compliant like this bogus sign. To many other places that will take my money and my chl.

Actually, I will bet you would lose in a court case as it being compliant. It says the sign must include the language, but does not say it can't include other words or even another sign. It also doesn't say it has to be on one piece of sign board.

Really. Heck I've seen signs that separate the english and spanish and I've never heard of this argument before. Then there is the fact that when you apply vinyl to glass each letter is separate, the argument is astounding. I mean sure if you have to go to court you try any argument that might work no matter how big of a long shot but to think that it's likely ..........

Trying to claim that the letters applied to glass are individual letters and not a sign is an even further stretch than saying that there are two separate signs, one in English and one in Spanish, while the statute says "a sign." The glass becomes the sign. All the letters on a piece of paper or poster board are also separate. However, I'll consider that you were also just trying to be over the top to prove a point.

This is also the first time I've considered the issue of two separate signs possibly not meeting the law. That is also why I've stated that I would not want to rely on that as a defense.

How is applying 2 pieces of paper to the glass different than applying a large number of all seperate letters? The argument seems to be because it doesn't look like one piece it somehow invalid seems a stretch. Invalid due to poor sign making?
So if they pushed the seperate pieces together so the didn't show as much gap it would be valid? You are right it was an attempt to make a point but the logic is the same.

They are not very different nor am I arguing that they are. I am saying that to try and use either as a defense is extremely weak and I would use neither. I am also not one of the folks using the argument that because the sign(s) in the OP don't look like what we normally see that they are not valid. If you'll notice, I'm one of the first back on page one that is arguing that these do meet the elements of a valid sign and have continued to do so.

[Keith B]

They are not very different nor am I arguing that they are. I am saying that to try and use either as a defense is extremely weak and I would use neither. I am also not one of the folks using the argument that because the sign(s) in the OP don't look like what we normally see that they are not valid. If you'll notice, I'm one of the first back on page one that is arguing that these do meet the elements of a valid sign and have continued to do so.

I think I am going to amend the phrase to 'Close only counts in horseshoes, hand grenades and 30.06 signs'.

[Abraham]

Debating semantics is fun!

However, if you're debating with an LEO, it may not go your way...have a fun ride.

Once again though, there are plenty of other grocery stores that welcome CHLers.

Give them your hard earned dollars.

Plus, you probably won't have to rub shoulders with Birkenstock sandal wearing, Prius driving, punctured nose, lips and ears (and I'm speaking of the guys) liberals, whose world view is so isolated from reality it's mind boggling...

[treadlightly]

Many signs and outdoor displays are put up in segments or strips. I think many large billboards are created that way. A jury might very reasonably consider a sign constructed of two or more panels flying in close formation is good enough. Paraphrasing Bill Engvalls, they might just say, "Here's your sign."

The way I try to look at questions like this is in mirror image.

Let's say the law had been written so as to require explicit authorization from a property owner to allow access with your peashooter. Not a 30.06 law, but it's mirror image, a 60.03. So to speak.

Would I argue that because the sign granting me permission to carry spanned across two sheets of paper it was meaningless and I was still prohibited?

My opinion may change. I try to throw out the crazy ones every so often, and I don't carry a firearm anywhere, at present.

If my CHL ever gets here, I'll join the debate for real, I guess.

[Abraham]

I'm sorry, but your post for me was cryptic, I didn't get it.

Care to make it more understandable for us slow folk...?

[treadlightly]

What I meant was if 30.06 signs, instead of being things that keep us from doing something, just imagine if they were signs that gave us liberty to do something we wanted to do.

If one of those mystical empowering signs was posted in a way where the required text spanned across two sheets of paper, would anyone say, "Nope, even though the words are there, even though I want to be allowed what that signs says, I'll keep my shackles and won't enjoy my civil rights. The sign, after all, spans two sheets of paper."

That's all I meant.

If whether or not the 30.06 fits on a single sheet of paper is material, then a mirror-image situation would seem as reasonable.

Your mileage may vary. Personally, I plan to accept generally prohibitive signs at face value. A mere "no guns" sign not generally in line with 30.06, I wouldn't slow down. I would avoid the place in the future, but I wouldn't risk messing with a gun for a sign that doesn't mean much. I think a "no guns" sign really means just leave it in the leather.

[EEllis]

They are not very different nor am I arguing that they are. I am saying that to try and use either as a defense is extremely weak and I would use neither. I am also not one of the folks using the argument that because the sign(s) in the OP don't look like what we normally see that they are not valid. If you'll notice, I'm one of the first back on page one that is arguing that these do meet the elements of a valid sign and have continued to do so.

I got it

[epontius]

I asked a lawyer that specializes in CHL and 2nd amendment issues/cases and provided a picture of the sign.
They said:

Though that sign is sort of a mix of different restrictions, there is enough 30.06 language there to create a fact issue as to whether or not you had “effective notice” that CHL holders are prohibited from carrying. Remember, a 30.06 does not have to be 100% perfect IF a jury looks at it and determines you had effective notice of the prohibition. Based on that specific sign, I recommend you leave your firearm in the car, or simply refuse to give them your business.

So even though by the letter of the law a sign may not be 100% technically correct, it's up to the jury as to whether it's "effective notice".

[C-dub]

I asked a lawyer that specializes in CHL and 2nd amendment issues/cases and provided a picture of the sign.
They said:

Though that sign is sort of a mix of different restrictions, there is enough 30.06 language there to create a fact issue as to whether or not you had “effective notice” that CHL holders are prohibited from carrying. Remember, a 30.06 does not have to be 100% perfect IF a jury looks at it and determines you had effective notice of the prohibition. Based on that specific sign, I recommend you leave your firearm in the car, or simply refuse to give them your business.

So even though by the letter of the law a sign may not be 100% technically correct, it's up to the jury as to whether it's "effective notice".

Thanks, but that's why if it came down to technicalities, I would choose a trial by judge if at all possible.

[epontius]

I guess the point is that you shouldn't knowingly enter somewhere where there is a 30.06 even if the sign isn't technically correct and you are discovered you will be unlikely to convince a jury that you weren't given notice.
Based on the fact that there are 6 pages in this thread of people with differing opinions, odds are that even a judge wouldn't rule in your favor.
If in the event that you inadvertently enter someplace with a 30.06 and are discovered you're probably better off throwing yourself on the mercy of the court, mea culpa, rather than nitpicking the semantics of the sign.

[sugar land dave]

When did I ever suggest that it was a good idea to challenge the signage? Please show me.

No you stated that it was an invalid sign. So no you didn"t say go challenge it but I think my responce was appropriate to your comment. If you don't feel free to ignore.

Couldn't find it, huh? I said that IMO, the sign is not technically correct. That is because it is physically 2 separate signs. I also said carrying past it would likely cost you dearly and I wouldn't carry past it. So, what exactly is your argument?

Yes you said it was incorrect, but why? It has everything that would be needed by law. That is my point. It isn't some trick that would allow the cops to bust you even if they shouldn't. My point was I didn't get why people were going on like the sign should be considered invalid. That was my point and what I addressed. No argument just that the sign is valid and your "but it's 2 sheets" has no legal basis.

BTW, you conveniently ignored my question.

Cuz I didn't care and it has zero effect on any legal argument. I addressed a legal point and didn't feel like worrying about the mental state of some merchant. The convenience of that was solely about not discussing something entirely pointless to anything I said.

No disrespect intended, but please hold on a minute so I can get a grip on the "common" definition of "sign" that you are laying out for me. In the world I know, sign is singular not plural, one not two. You seem to be trying to tell me and everyone else that a sign can be two non adjoined pieces. Physically taped together to form one contiguous message, I might buy, but to allow one to mean two is a torturous use of language in my opinion.

That said, concealed may be concealed, and one may not be two, but I would never push such a fine legal point by walking past the sign(s). Yes, I would not walk past a sign that is close enough to engender a debate such as seen in this thread. To that end, Whole Foods has seen none of my business since the original post. With Costco, HEB, and a half dozen other stores within a mile of their store, they are not impeding me.

[sugar land dave]

It is not compliant but, whole foods is telling you they do not want your business. I would shop some place else. I never shop in a store that posts, even if it is totally non-compliant like this bogus sign. To many other places that will take my money and my chl.

Actually, I will bet you would lose in a court case as it being compliant. I says the sign must include the language, but does not say it can't include other words or even another sign. It also doesn't say it has to be on one piece of sign board.

Really. Heck I've seen signs that separate the english and spanish and I've never heard of this argument before. Then there is the fact that when you apply vinyl to glass each letter is separate, the argument is astounding. I mean sure if you have to go to court you try any argument that might work no matter how big of a long shot but to think that it's likely ..........

I think you are arguing with a point I agree with you on. I say there is no definition of how the signs must be laid out, so as long as the language is there and the points of the law are met, then the letters on glass, seperate englsih and spanish signs on different sides of the door, etc are all valid IMO.

If your lawyer is down to arguing those points of law, then I don't like your chances. Some points are just not worth pushing. Walking past this Wholefood sign(s) is one of them.